To think that grammar schools should either be scrapped altogether or available in every county?

[Perriwinkle]

How can it possibly be fair or reasonable to have them only in certain counties?

I know that many people will say "how can a system that supposedly favours the brightest ten percent of children, ever be fair?" but personally, I've actually got no beef with that provided that the opportunity to attend these schools is available to the brightest children in all counties.

How can it be equitable that the brightest children who live in counties which do not have a grammar school system are routinely failed by the comprehensive system whilst those who live in certain counties are not because they are able to attend high performing State-funded grammar schools?

I think if you're anti grammar schools altogether you should probably hide this thread. This is not meant to be a thread about the pros and cons, relative merits, inequalities or shortcomings of either the grammar school system or the comprehensive system. It is a simply a question of wishing to hear any reasonable justification that may be put forward for the continued existence of the grammar school system in its current guise.

How can it be fair to continue restricting the opportunity to enjoy a priveliged grammar school education (akin to that which many people pay handsomely for in the private sector) only to children who live in certain parts of the country?

Why does your DS need a fag ?

Seriously, most parents in private schools don't want any Tom Dick or Harry in their child's class they are paying for exclusivity it's a bit annoying to find you haven't got it I'd imagine.

It's just that it's a one way street, isn't it? You're happy to have a couple of the deserving poor in your child's school, but you wouldn't want your child in theirs.

"Which is why all comprehensives should insist on, and maintain, the levels of discipline/respect/good behaviour that occur in grammar schools."

Take the five hardest working and brightest children from every class and put them in a group together. You will find that on the whole they are very respectful and well behaved. It's not teachers or schools that are responsible for excellent standards of behaviour in grammar schools. It's the fact that they're stuffed with intelligent, well behaved children.

IMO as long as grammar schools select a disproportionate number of their intake from private primaries, then I can't support their existence.

Intakes should reflect the social make up of the area the school is in. If 90% of the children in the area attend state schools then the grammar should have 90% of its intake coming from state schools.

Unless of course you're going to argue that private schools have a higher proportion of intrinsically intelligent children?......... (as opposed to high achieving children).

seeker too right, I definitely wouldn't want my children in their school. According to friends who are parents of boys and girls there, there are too many very bright children with C in GCSEs when they could have got A/A+. It's a very leafy comprehensive, btw, in a market town in the South, with few social problems. Most of the feeder primaries (ours among them) are excellent.

Another Mumsnet trope.

Very bright means excusable bad behaviour at Primary School
Very bright means preternatural good behaviour and therefore requiring segregation at Secondary School.

I generalise wildly, natch.

There certainly seems to be a boy in DS's year who is handy with his fists... not in DS's form though...

There is an old saying spare the rod ruin the child ...

Red sky at night, shepherds delight....
An apple a day keeps the doctor away

what's that got to do with anything??

I dunno, can see both sides. Am from working class single parent council estate blue collar jobs no family went to school after 15yrs background. 2 of us in my year passed the 11 plus and gained entry (30 years ago) to the one grammar school left in 2 counties. Mum turned down my place because of needing bus journey/i'd be better off going with friends/not getting above ourselves, etc.

Comp for me was hell. Despite my doing alright socially and the classes being streamed there was a strong culture among the kids (bright and otherwise) for not attaining and playing up. Worst thing in the world to be a boffin or achieve top place in tests over and again, the bullying culture was rife and frightening. A sense of self preservation stopped me attaining what I could have. The other kid who passed went to the grammar, Cambridge and is now a politician! Hmm... not sure that last bit gives any weight to my argument.

So for me I should have gone to grammar, as fulfilling my academic potential in the hell hell that was my comp was never going to happen. Having said that I don't think grammars achieve what they set out to do anymore (sharp elbowed middle class tutored dominance as evidenced further up thread). But to work comps need to be properly resourced in order to have high expectations for pupils and thorough surveillance for problems with behaviour, achievement, effort in pupils. They need the very best teachers to manage all the abilities, backgrounds and other variables which comes with a diverse intake. Plus a very good career advice programme. Realistically this isn't the case is it with most comps so I can't blame parents who live in areas where the comps routinely have 1. poor results 2. behaviour and attendance problems 3. no sixth form 4. high turnover of staff, for doing their best to avoid damning their kids to a second best education.

I would love it if people could say 'bring back our secondary moderns' - 'save our secondary moderns' but it is always, always, always 'bring back our grammar schools' - 'save our grammar schools' because those saying it make the assumption (a foolish thing to do, because the brightest of DCs can fail) that their DC will be in the grammar school and they don't need to worry about the 75%. ( it is also a foolish assumption that all grammar school pupils are well behaved!)

exotic championing grammars doesn't mean one has to champion secondary moderns as well. I personally would like to see the return of more grammars nationwide, with admissions test which negate the effects of tutoring, taking perhaps the top 10% to 15%. But I wouldn't want that unless the alternatives were absolutely fit for purpose too: different, not worse.

The theory is easy of course, always has been.

Maybe people don't call for secondary moderns because they are closer to comprehensives than grammar schools are, so there is no need for them to be brought back.

People do call for more vocational and practical subjects to be taught in comprehensives, which is pretty much the same thing isn't it?

Do they say, let's have an environment for our children where the very brightest aren't in the way, spoiling things? I want my children to be able to thrive in an environment where there isn't anyone much cleverer than him? Why should my non academic child have to have lessons spoilt by academic children? I haven't heard them.

Nit - actually, sometimes mothers (in particular) can get really arsey about high achieving kids. Especially in primary school. Really, seriously, nastily arsey. This was one of the things that decided me that DD1 might as well try for the grammar school, actually.

"Maybe people don't call for secondary moderns because they are closer to comprehensives than grammar schools are, so there is no need for them to be brought back."

The fact that people can actually say things like this makes me despair. You really have no idea at all, have you?

Seeker - some comps (not particularly the one my DS goes to, but others that I know quite well) do offer more vocational subjects, which was supposed to be one of the good things about sec mods. So in that sense, we do still have schools which offer similar things (in a good way). We also have comps that are hugely academic (eg my old school). And every point in between, really. People call for grammars for all sorts of reasons and some of them are bad reasons and some of them are mad reasons. But that doesn't mean there aren't some good reasons too.

Perhaps you would like to tell me where I'm going wrong Seeker?

Seeker, while I can understand your frustration to a certain extent, and I think your support of comps is admirable in a way - you never went to one and neither of your children go to one so it is actually possible that other people (who perhaps went to a comp, have a child at a comp, or both) actually do have more of an idea about them than you do. Just a thought.

I agree with that Russian. I recall primary school parents being quite arsey about the bright kids. They would complain about extension work being given because in their minds, it wasn't the bright kids that needed any extra time spent on them.

There was definitely an attitude problem amongst some parents about the brighter children, especially the ones that were on the G&T list or who were taking the 11+. And those attitudes rub off on their children. So why would I want my child to be surrounded by that?

It makes me despair too! I went to a secondary modern and it was nothing like my DCs comprehensive! We didn't have a sixth form, we didn't send DCs to Oxbridge- or even university. The whole point is that the comprehensive has the grammar and the secondary modern under the same roof and they can change direction easily. The fact that people think that comprehensives and secondary moderns are similar shows the problem! Those with the best public exam results are printed in the local paper with photos- they are seen as the 'cool' ones.

Grammars have both advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a huge fan of some aspects of them myself, but I know plenty are. It seems to me that having them in some parts of the country and not others at least allows those people who are able to move area to have a choice. I know this isn't fair to those who can't move, but not much in education is fair to be frank - even without grammars there would be fantastic and dire catchment areas and state and private divisions, so I don't mind having them in some places and not others. It's far more important to identify and improve schools of all types that are failing and to strive towards providing a good standard of education for all regardless of how it is delivered.

^ being printed in the local paper does NOT make people the 'cool ones' in a school! in some cases more the opposite!!

@Grow - exactly. The naivety of some people is astounding. Also - not all comps have 6th forms. It depends where you live. Not all comps send kids to Oxbridge. But some do - some are better in every way than some grammar schools. And others aren't. Blanket generalisations are not terribly helpful.

Exotic, surely you can see a similarity in that vocational subjects were offered at secondary moderns, and increasingly, more and more of them are being offered at comprehensives?

People don't call for secondary moderns, but they do call for the return of apprenticeships, and for practical subjects to be on offer.

There are colleges that offer sixth forms and vocational courses, so I don't think it matters if a school doesn't have a sixth form as long as the students have access to the courses they want to take in another institution.

being printed in the local paper does NOT make people the 'cool ones' in a school! in some cases more the opposite!!

I can assure you that in our area they are the 'cool' ones-they are the winners with the great futures-there may be some who don't see it this way, but since they are the minority and the 'losers' -why would anyone take any notice?! Nearly all the local DCs go because it it comprehensive and they are very ambitious (and so are their parents!)
The are only called boffins etc if there are not enough at the top end.

Of course apprenticeships and practical subjects are good for the majority (far more as people see the pointlessness of a lot of university courses) but why do they need to be under a different roof? What is the 11+ failure who has every intention of going to Oxbridge supposed to do- be channelled down a practical path because they failed a test at 10 year old?!